Hanna denied DVF’s suggestion that she’s had lip injections, but a picture is worth a thousand words. Hanna apparently ignored what should have been a wakeup call, because her most recent Instagram photos are replete with trout pout:

Melissa Click, the University of Missouri professor who tried to physically remove journalists from a black “safe space” on the public university’s campus, has been charged with misdemeanor assault.

The professor has been excoriated in the mainstream media for her appalling behavior, particularly her call for “muscle” to forcibly remove journalists from the safe space, but the assault charge is the first time she has faced anything other than criticism. The university did not fire Click after her November 9, 2015 confrontation with the journalists.

Although we have mentioned Click’s SJW antics in posts condemning so-called safe spaces, StickyDrama would normally not report on Click because she is not an Internet personality, or rather she was not prior to the November 9 incident. But she has since been transmogrified into countless SJW memes, and she embodies the worst of SJW sentiment.

The concept of a safe space was seemingly benign: To give traditionally oppressed or marginalized groups a place–whether a physical or online location–to express their anger and frustration without fear of so-called privilege explaining. However, the concept has been corrupted; safe spaces have become Orwellian zones of fascism where public land is appropriated and contrary viewpoints are not tolerated, sometimes at the threat of physical violence.

Even though the maximum punishment Click faces is a paltry fine and a few days in jail, hopefully her prosecution will send the message to SJWs that feelings do not trump civil rights.

I’ve tried to beat this thing naturally now for close to 15 years. To say that I’m disciplined would be the understatement of the decade.

I’ve nailed down every diet you can imagine. Paleo. The Specific Carbohydrate Diet. FODMAPs. GAPS. I’ve tried variations of them all. I’ve introduced foods slowly. I’ve tried all sorts of alternative therapies. I’ve been on several of the drugs.

Various things have helped at times. Sort of. But nothing has really worked. My condition has now progressed to a point where long-term drug maintenance for the rest of my life is a very real possibility, and not one that I’m at all excited about. Not only do I have no assurance that my symptoms will improve, but the side effects of these drugs range from super annoying to downright brutal.

It recently came to my attention that there’s an approved treatment for C.Diff Colitis that’s been proven to work for IBD as well, albeit when administered for a much longer period of time and with strict consistency. I’ve looked into this treatment extensively (I’m admittedly a neurotic researcher) and once I got past the “ick” factor, decided that it’s the real deal.

It’s called Bacteriotherapy. At least that’s what the medical world calls it. In reality, we’re talking about fecal transplants (commonly referred to as FMT or Fecal Microbial Transplantation). This means taking the poop of a healthy person and inserting it into the colon of a sick person by enema. Like I said, there’s an “ick” factor. Believe me, I’m not a bizarro poop fetish guy (and hey, no offense to those who are) but when you’re sick and you absolutely believe that something will get you not just a little better, but potentially in remission or even cured, you go for it.

Before I proceed with my pitch, here’s some reading material that you might find interesting.

A. Professor Tom Borody in Australia is the king of this shit. Literally. He was the first one to talk about how Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis (MAP) is an infectious cause of Crohn’s Disease. Its causality has been proven by the standard Koch’s postulates which have been fulfilled by culturing the pathogen from patients with Crohn’s Disease. Here’s a link to his website, where you can read lots more about Crohn’s, IBD and fecal tranplants:http://www.cdd.com.au

B. The Taymount Clinic in the UK has performed more FMT’s than anyone else in the world. Here’s a link to their site: http://taymount.com

C. Sky Curtis’ son Chris was suffering from Crohn’s (my story is actually quite similar to his) and she did everything that any loving mother would do to save his life. This included fecal transplants. Today, Chris is 100% cured and disease-free thanks to fecal transplants that he received from his mother, Sky. She documented the whole process and wrote out the protocol of how she did it. It’s an awesome story that if nothing else will leave you amazed, touched and filled with that warm and fuzzy feeling: http://www.amazon.com/Gut-Reaction-Mothers-Struggle-Recovery-ebook/dp/B00E8GCEBA

E. Finally here’s the link to an authority site about fecal transplants that offers resources and testimonials. The site is filled with stories of people who did this thing all sorts of wrong, and in many cases still got very good results. Overall very inspiring stuff. http://thepowerofpoop.com

Now that I’ve hit you with all of the information, it’s time for the pitch.

I’m looking for a healthy stool donor. That’s right, I want your poop. And I’m willing to pay you for it. While the money is certainly one part of it, honestly the type of person I’m looking for is someone who is just as into this to help another human being by doing something as simple as taking poops for them.

As for how much I’ll pay, we can discuss. I’m far from a rich guy but am open to various options based on your individual situation.

Aside from the money, there’s another added benefit. You’ll be eating amazingly well. I need someone who is incredibly healthy and am willing to help in part to financially support great dietary habits.

My ideal candidate is:
– Male between 18-39
– In great health
– Lives in or around Los Angeles
– Is looking to be a part of something kind of crazy, yet incredible

Obviously this barely scratches the surface of eligibility. In addition to eating great, this person would have to go through a quick series of stool and blood tests to confirm eligibility.

There’s also some initial criteria that would exclude someone from being eligible. I’ve posted at the end of this ad a full questionnaire that I need to have answered before moving forward with anyone. It’s a serious list of questions, but putting someone else’s poop inside of me is sort of a serious deal.

Logistically, we can also discuss how and where this pooping would take place. There are a few options. But ultimately all you need to do is poop. I don’t require help of any kind in preparing the enema or anything else. Again, you just poop.

More so than eligibility and eating habits and everything else, the biggest thing arguably is commitment. Once we start, we absolutely must see the whole protocol through.

Here’s the schedule:
First 30 days: Every day.
Next three weeks: Every other day.
Next three weeks: Every third day.
Next three weeks: Every fourth day.
Next three weeks: Every fifth day.
Next three weeks: Once a week.
Next six weeks: Once every two weeks.
Next year: Once a month.

It’s a serious schedule. The really tough part is the first 3-4 months, where travel is basically not an option. Beyond that it obviously gets much easier, especially when it’s a once a month thing.

If you want to be a part of something life-changing (who knows, perhaps for both of us. . .) and incredibly helpful not only to me, but to those with whom I intend to share my experience and results, then respond to this ad. If you respond though, make sure to answer all of the questions below and include your answers with your reply. There are a lot of questions, but they’re all important and relevant in one way or another.

Thanks in advance so much. Means a lot to me.

Jake

Questionnaire:
1. Do you have any chronic illnesses?
2. Do you have any autoimmune conditions (e.g.. Grave’s disease, multiple sclerosis, connective tissue disease, hypothyroidism, IBD, lupus, rheumatoid ?arthritis, other)?
3. Do you have any history of IBD (Crohn’s/Colitis), irritable bowel syndrome, chronic constipation or chronic diarrhea?
4. Do you have any history of gastrointestinal malignancy or known polyposis?
5. Do you take medication on a daily basis? If yes, which medications and for what reason?
6. Have you taken antibiotics in the last 6 months?
7. Do you have any history of excessive antibiotic use?
8. Do you smoke? If so, how often?
9. Do you drink? If so, how often?
10. Do you use recreational drugs? If so, how often?
11. Have you ever used drugs intravenously?
12. Do you have / have you ever had a tattoo?
13. Have you ever been rejected as a blood donor? If yes, why?
14. Have you ever received blood products or a blood transfusion? If yes, where and when?
15. Have you ever received any type of transplant (e.g. organ, tissue, cornea, hair, etc.)? If yes, where, when, and what type?
16. Were you born in a country outside the United States, or have you ever resided in a
country outside the U.S. for more than 1 year? If yes, when and where?
17. Have you traveled outside of the U.S. in the last two years? If yes, where and when?
18. Have you ever had malaria? If yes, when?
19. Have you received vaccinations for hepatitis B?
20. While visiting another country (for work or vacation), have you ever had sexual contact ?with people originating from that country? If yes, when and where?
21. Do you have a new sexual partner with whom you have commenced sexual relations within the last twelve months?
22. Have you ever been in an Immunosuppressive state, or have a past use of immunosuppressive medications?
23. Do you have any history of major gastrointestinal surgery (e.g., gastric bypass)?
24. Do you have any history of metabolic syndrome with BMI >30?
25. Do you have any history of Atopic diseases including asthma, eosinophilic disorders of the gastrointestinal tract?
26. Do you have any history of chronic pain syndromes, e.g., chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia?
27. Do you have any history of skin issues, such as psoriasis, eczema, hives, acne, itchy skin, rashes of any kind or dermatitis?
28. Do you have any history of joint pain?
29. Have you suffered from any hair loss, i.e. male pattern baldness or thinning?
30. Do you have any sexual dysfunction or issues with libido?
31. Do you have any history of obesity / weight control issues?
32. Do you have any history of allergies (seasonal, food etc)?
33. Have you ever had anonymous sexual contacts?
34. Have you ever had sexual contact with someone who uses IV drugs?
35. Have you ever had sexual contact with someone of your own sex?
36. Have you ever had sexual contact with a bisexual or homosexual man?
37. In the last 12 months, have you had receptive anal sex with a new partner?
38. Have you ever had sexual contact with someone who received money from you for this ?contact?
39. Have you ever worked as a sex worker/prostitute?
40. Have you ever had sexual contact with someone who turned out to be infected with HIV, HTLV, hepatitis, or syphilis?
41. Have you ever had a sexually transmittable disease (e.g. HIV, syphilis, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, genital herpes, oral herpes, trichomonas, bacterial vaginosis, HPV, other)?
42. Have you ever been treated for an intestinal infection (e.g. C. difficile, Salmonella, Shigella, Campylobacter, Yersinia, E. coli, rotavirus, norovirus, intestinal parasites, other)? If yes, which ones and when?
43. Do you have hemorrhoids?
44. Have you ever had blood in your stools? a. If yes, were any extra tests performed? What were the results?
45. Have you had a fever in the past two weeks?
46. How often do you poop? And how consistent are the times?
47. Can you describe a high-level overview of your diet?
48. Do you exercise? If yes, how often?
49. What is your profession?
50. What zip code do you live in?
51. How flexible is your schedule?
52. Are you sure that you can COMMIT to the schedule:
First 30 days: Every day.
Next three weeks: Every other day.
Next three weeks: Every third day.
Next three weeks: Every fourth day.
Next three weeks: Every fifth day.
Next three weeks: Once a week.
Next six weeks: Once every two weeks.
Next year: Once a month.

Freedom of speech, which has been under attack lately, was ultimately reaffirmed today when a Toronto man was found not guilty of criminal harassment on Twitter. Caveat: the ruling applies only in Canada, which has given us nothing but trouble, trash and maple syrup.

Gregory Alan Elliot had engaged in a Twitter fight with two feminists, Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly. Elliot had previously met Guthrie IRL; however, they didn’t really begin to butt heads until they argued over a game called “Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian,” an infamous Canadian feminist who critiques patriarchal themes in video games and has been one of the primary targets of #GamerGate. While things got pretty heated, Elliot had not actually threatened the women physically or sexually.

The judge’s opinion included this message, which runs counter to the feminist notion of an online safe space: People must “tolerate the annoyance” of oppositional views in an open platform like Twitter. The judge further noted that the feminists’ position was unreasonable, insofar as they expected to be able to criticize Elliot’s views without his being able to respond. The judge furthermore rejected the contention that including contrary viewpoints in feminist hashtags constituted harassment: “Once someone creates a hashtag, anyone can use it. Everyone has to be able to use it freely; anything less will limit the operation of Twitter in a way that is not consistent with freedom of expression,” he wrote.

Christie Blatchford, a reporter for Canada’s National Post, was present in the courtroom and described an eye-opening exchange between Elliot’s attorney and Ms. Guthrie on the witness stand:

There was Chris Murphy, the lawyer for accused stalker Gregory Elliott, asking Stephanie Guthrie, the alleged victim of Mr. Elliott’s alleged harassment, reading aloud a Tweet of his client’s.

“Blaming the majority of normal men for rape…is wrong,” Mr. Elliott, a 53-year-old Toronto man, wrote back in September of 2012. “Rapists are not normal men; they’re crazy. Why not blame the mentally ill?”

It hardly rang in my ears as the ravings of a perverse woman-hater, nor apparently in Mr. Murphy’s, because after reading it for Ontario Court Justice Brent Knazan, Mr. Murphy asked, in his reasonable way, “That’s a pretty good point?”

In the witness stand, Ms. Guthrie snorted, yelled, “Are you kidding me?”, pounded her fist and then announced, “I know lots of normal men who have raped; I have been raped by normal men.”

If he was as gobsmacked as I was by that, Mr. Murphy didn’t show it; he simply asked if that meant Mr. Elliott’s was an offensive point of view.

While the ruling sets an important precedent, it was a Pyrrhic victory for Elliot, who was arrested in 2012 and terminated from his job immediately thereafter. For the last 3 years, he has been forbidden to use the Internet during his trial, which made it difficult for him to find work in his field of graphic design.

In the United States, the definition of harassment mainly concerns a person’s objective conduct: repeated unwanted contact. In Canada, the definition places more emphasis on the target’s subjective perception of that conduct: “conduct… that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.” Unsurprisingly, the feminists claimed that Elliot’s tweets made them feel “unsafe”—a claim that personifies the term crybully.

Thankfully, the Canadian court looked to objective evidence that vitiated the supposed victims’ claim of feeling unsafe. For example, Guthrie and Reilly’s conduct did not demonstrate fear or intimidation: They conspired in feminist groups as to how to shame Elliot publicly and whipped their Twitter followers into a frenzy by demonizing the man with insinuations of pedophilia.

As StickyDrama has repeatedly stated on this website, safe spaces are intellectually and physically dangerous. Normally, an individual user’s efforts to block and silence dissenting opinions on their social media profiles do not implicate free speech. But in this case, the Third Wave feminist campaign to carve out safe spaces online directly threatened free speech, because Guthrie attempted to usurp the power of the Crown in her fascist mission.

Most of the media hailed the not guilty verdict as a victory for free speech, but the usual culprits had a more somber outlook. The ridonculously SJW Buzzfeed, of course, claimed that the verdict “opened the floodgates” for “a new wave of vitriol against women”; the staunchly feminist Huffington Post wrote that Elliot was really guilty but got off on a technicality; and the British Guardian painted a one-sided picture of the row.

NEED A CHEAP ASS RIDE? CALL GHETTO CABS! WE COMIN’ UP! (AUSTIN)

Do you need a cheap ass ride? Call Ghetto Cabs!We may pick yo ass up in a ghetto ass ride but we will get you where you need to go in one piece and in good mutha fuckin’ time! Call or text and if you don’t get through the first time, its because we are fuckin’ busy, but I promise we get to you ASAP! The easiest thing to do is to send a date, location (meaning physical address) and a time, a few hours ahead of time is best but sometimes we can get to you on the fly, so just try! The rate is 20$ one way in and around the Austin area or 50$ per hour, longer trips are negotiable.So if you need a cheap ass ride or if you need a mutha fuckin’ job call GHETTO CABS, We Comin’ Up!

Feminist vlogger Kat Blaque kicked off the new year on Everyday Feminism with the contention it is impossible for black people to be racist. StickyDrama must disagree: Everyone can be a little bit racist sometimes–even blacks. We reached out to the influential social justice warrior for comment.

First, a little backstory: As a black trans woman, Kat Blaque is a self-proclaimed “intersectionality salad” who has become an authority on matters of race and gender. “What the hell is intersectionality,” you ask? Intersectionality is a school of feminist thought that views the interplays of domination-oppression and privilege-disadvantage in a multidimensional analysis of identity; individual identities exist at the “intersection” of lines of race, gender, class, etc. Intersectional feminists don’t tell us to check our privilege; they tell us to check all our privileges.

Black feminist Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term intersectionality to describe the situation of black women who faced more discrimination in the workplace than white women and black men. Its meaning has since expanded as it encroached upon and ultimately consumed “kyriarchy,” feminism’s former vogue word. How did kyriarchy lose her feminist crown to intersectionality? Vogue words come and go, but kyriarchy had several disadvantages vis-à-vis intersectionality: Kyriarchy refers to an abstract system of domination and oppression that is difficult to visualize, whereas intersectionality emphasizes concrete individuals.

But most damning of all, kyriarchy was coined by a white Christian woman, which was deeply problematic to Third Wave feminists. In a victim culture gone mad, any idea expressed a white person is more problematic than the same idea expressed by a black person.

Anyway, Blaque espouses many,many, many SJW views, but perhaps none is more controversial than her recent doozy that black people are incapable of racism. She explained her reasoning by making a distinction between racism and prejudice:

First and foremost, I think that we need to make a distinction between racism and prejudice, right? Because I think that a lot of us – especially if we grew up in the 90s – have this view of racism where it’s always this prejudice that you have based on skin tone…. But that’s not racism. Racism is so much more than that. Racism is a system. Black people can absolutely be prejudiced. But they have not held the power in this country to actually systemically oppress a white person…. [Reverse racism is] not a thing. It’s not real. There’s no system that’s built up against white people to say, “Well, because you’re white, you can’t have access to this, this, and this, and this.”

In other words, Blaque defines racism as systemic oppression based on race rather than as isolated instances of racial hatred or prejudice, a view of racism has been termed the “prejudice plus power” formulation. No matter how much hatred a black person may feel toward whites, no matter what awful thing a black person may do to a white person, no black person’s thoughts or deeds can constitute racism, according to the “prejudice plus power” view, because black people lack the power to take away the civil or human rights of others in society. This rationale undergirds the “Reverse Racism Isn’t Real” campaign; however, not everyone agrees with this ontological chicanery:

Far be it from StickyDrama to whitesplain, but Blaque’s argument suffers from one fatal flaw: the failure to cite any authority for the “prejudice plus power” formula. Our criticism is different than insisting that the only correct definition of racism is the one found in the Oxford English Dictionary, which was written by a bunch of evil white men. But Blaque’s failure to cite any authority whatsoever for such a controversial statement is intellectually unacceptable. Even if Blaque has an aversion to the writings of straight white cisgender men, plenty of less problematic scholars have published works propounding the “prejudice plus power” formula.

Perhaps Blaque eschews any citation because the “prejudice plus power” formula has been always been a minority view within academia, and unheard of in common usage. Sociology scholars use the “prejudice plus power” formula to describe institutional racism,not to replace the lexical definition of racism as any racial prejudice. Not even other SJWs share Blaque’s narrow definition of racism. For example, Randi Harper, the problematically white creator of the GamerGate Block Bot, adopts the Anti-Defamation League’s definition of racism, which is the same one found in the OED.

Another possibility is that the denial of one’s own potential for racism is begging the question. In other words, Third Wave feminists tend to have an obsession with labels; perhaps they’re unconsciously distancing themselves from a pejorative label, even if the shoe fits. StickyDrama has seen this sort of cognitive dissonance before, up close and personal: the man who insists that he is straight, but for one reason or another has consensual sex with other men.

For StickyDrama, voluntarily participating in gay sex makes you at least a little bit gay and exhibiting racial prejudice makes you at least a little bit racist. Moreover, the very notion that one particular race is incapable of racism strikes us as a little bit racist inasmuch as it attributes a form of moral superiority to that race. For this very reason, sociology scholar Pooja Sawrikar–who, by the way, is also an intersectionality salad–cautioned against using the reductionist “prejudice plus power” definition to the exclusion of all others. Sawrikiar states her point so brilliantly, we have to block quote her:

A definition of racism that gives disproportionate weight to power over prejudice is based on a logical flaw. It begins with the equation ‘Racism = Prejudice + Power’, but uses the historic and current inequity in social power in favour of whites to replace power with this nominal racial group; that is, ‘Power = whites’. In this way, it falsely deduces from these two premises that ‘Racism = Prejudice + whites’, or in the words of Lewis (1995), that ‘only white people can be racist’.

The statement or belief that ‘only White people can be racist’ (Lewis 1995) is itself a negative or prejudicial stereotype. While this statement or belief does not assert that every white person is racist, it does assert that only white people have the capacity to be racist because only white people have power. This is prejudicial, because it reflects a negative generalisation about a racial group (Devine 1989). (Indeed, the term prejudice is derived from the Latin prae judicium, meaning ‘pre-judgement’).

Lewis (1995) asserts that ‘there’s no such thing as reverse racism because there’s no such thing as a simple reversal of the power relationships between Whites and Blacks’. While it may be difficult to overturn entrenched discrepancies in social power in the future, given the current and historic inequity in the distribution of social power, it is untrue that racial groups other than white have no social power with which to hold whites accountable for their racism. Thus, the prejudicial assertion that only white people can be racist is an example of how people from minority ethnic groups can misuse the social power their racial group does have, albeit currently lower than their white counterparts, and demonstrate reverse racism. In this way, it repeats the very mistake it is trying to rectify – devaluing ‘the other’. It justifies the use of racism to overcome racism, thereby perpetuating its occurrence.

But even if we were to agree that racial prejudice alone does not constitute racism, StickyDrama can conceive of several scenarios in which blacks have the power to oppress others, depending on how we choose to define power in a given context. (Again, a citation to a specific authority would have allowed us to consider the precise meaning of “power” in Blaque’s contention.) In prison, where blacks have strength in numbers, black inmates are known to target white inmates for sexual violence. Men arguably have more power than women, and male black panther Eldridge Cleaver infamously described his raping white women as an “insurrectionary act” that “delighted” him. And, lest we forget this glorious moment, sometimes rich and powerful blacks oppress other blacks:

StickyDrama reached out to Blaque for comment, sending her a summary of the above. To our great surprise and delight, she replied:

All I will say is that if racism were as simple as someone not liking me or calling me a nigger then that would be pretty easy for me to dismiss…. Black people do not have the socio political power to oppress white people…. Saying that this is “circular reasoning” doesn’t really have any truth to it. Racism is so much more than people just not liking each other…. [I]f your focus in this conversation is your desperate need to state that black people can [hate] white people, then you’re missing the point…. I find white men are seeking to win this “argument” while [I’m] simply parroting history. And isn’t that a great example of how little these things impact white people. That they describe [my] discussion [of] racism in game terms like “race card” and want to win the “debate” and not just recognize that racial inequality exists and has a history.

Blaque still refused to cite any authority for her “prejudice plus power” viewpoint, but StickyDrama is more troubled by Blaque’s apparent distaste for dialogue. In addition to her response, Blaque wrote about our exchange on her personal blog: “To be honest, I rolled my eyes at it. I just find these sort of comments/questions to be a waste of time and energy.” Ouch! White cisgender male tears streamed down StickyDrama’s cheeks.

JK. To be honest, we rolled our eyes at our email too. StickyDrama would never dream of asking Blaque to educate us, because that’s not her job. We would have been perfectly happy simply to write that her post was a bunch of hooey, period. But we nevertheless asked for her comment because that’s what journalists are supposed to do–and bloggers are journalists. No matter how confident we are of our ability to anticipate another side’s perspective, presenting only one side of an issue is a journalistic failure.

Maybe Kat Blaque does not consider herself a journalist, even though she has reported in the Huffington Post. Maybe she prefers to think of herself as an advocate, pure and simple. Even if that were the case, her advocacy would do better to include other points of view, if only so she could rebut them.

“I really enjoy having conversations with people who disagree with me,” Blaque wrote last year, perhaps with her fingers crossed. “I find having conversations with people who just agree with me all the time to actually be quite boring. But oftentimes, if I’ve banned you from my platform, it’s not because I’m afraid of facing you. It’s that you’ve posted some really disrespectful shit that just doesn’t really belong on my page.”

StickyDrama has no doubt that Blaque had good reason to ban folks, but we suspect that her bit about enjoying conversations is dishonest. Blaque and her clique of like-minded feminists make no secret that their platform is not a place for debate; without expressly using the term, Everyday Feminism is clearly a so-called safe space where “dominant identities” are unwelcome and “dismissing the experiences of marginalized people” is not allowed. Asking the wrong questions, no matter how politely phrased, will result in a ban just as fast as will making violent threats or vulgar slurs.

Blaque makes the point that these policies do not violate free speech or impose censorship because they are not enforced by the government. Technically she is correct; however, her policies certainly lean in that dystopian direction. More alarming, such policies have a tendency to infect the minds of college students, who are rapidly becoming Orwellian fascists. When one side of a debate is so sure of its moral superiority that it will use intimidation to silence contrary views, no one is safe.

So now here we are, Kat Blaque floating on angel’s clouds in one corner, StickyDrama sinking down the stinking abyss of evil in another. Neither one of us changed our position, and we probably never will, no matter how eloquent and well-researched an argument is made. But that’s fine–StickyDrama never sought to “win this ‘argument'” with Blaque in the sense of convincing her that we were right and she was wrong. We engaged her because adversarial situations force both sides to consider and, more importantly, rebut opposing views, i.e. fleshing out their position in ways that do not occur in comfortable intellectual isolation. StickyDrama enjoyed our unsafe exchange with Kat Blaque, and we hope that she did too.